Login Here
Congratulations, Barack Obama. The Maliki government just won the Iraq debate for you, and possibly the election. From today’s Washington Post:
Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in Baghdad on Wednesday that a U.S. pullout could be completed in several years. "It can be 2011 or 2012," he said. "We don’t have a specific date in mind, but we need to agree on the principle of setting a deadline."
And that’s how Obama ends the Iraq debate on his terms. He says, again and again, that the Iraqis themselves want his policy in place. Rather than negotiate a permanent presence as Bush and McCain want the line can go, I will immediately begin pulling combat brigades out and immediately enter into negotiations on the "specific date" that Mr. Dabbagh says can be flexible and responsive to conditions on the ground. That’s wise, firstly; principled, secondly; and reflective of where the political mood of both the U.S. and Iraq (well, the Iraqi elite at least) is. In short, it’s a winning argument.
The Iraqi government is telling us to leave. Not Moqtada. Not the Sunni insurgency. Not even the Sunni political opposition. Maliki. The man Bush trusts.
Even better is this: if John McCain endorses the timetable, then he’s the biggest flip-flopper of all time. In fact, Obama should challenge McCain to endorse it. If he accepts, he’s a flip-flopper; if he declines, he’s an imperialist. There’s no downside here.
4 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
It’s even better than that! McCain said flatly in 2004 that we should leave Iraq if asked by an elected government. So if he agrees with Obama, he will be back where he was then. That’s not a flip-flop, that’s an inward 3-1/2 with 2 twists.
Nothing being said to the media matters much on this SOFA, as there are way to many layers of this onion to penetrate. I would likely trust a straightforward statement from Sistani, but probably not much else.
The only good SOFA is one that doesn’t get signed in 2008, even as a memorandum. Bush/Cheney cannot, cannot be trusted, and we all know this. Why would the Iraqis even want to sign something with Bush knowing the probable odds that Obama will take another road – unless Maliki prefers BushCo to ObamaCo, which seems counterintuitive giving Sistani’s fairly consistent stance since this started. Without Sistani (and probably without the assent of Sadr), Maliki cannot govern.
But the current verbal posturing sure does make McCain’s position worse, if that is possible. If the Iraqis insist on some form of timetable and full Iraq sovereignty, McCain would be reduced to arguing for the “Emperor Must Prevail” position: we won’t be kicked out of Iraq because we understand the danger to the US and the Iraqis don’t. That would fly real well, right?
Unfortunately, you can pretty much guarantee that Obama’s campaign advisers will tell him to adopt McCain’s plan on permanent bases in order to better snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. FISA, late-term abortion, and other issues are painful warning signs of his move to the center.
These same consultants killed Gore’s winning run and recount, while also telling Kerry to ignore those pesky swift-boaters instead of going on the offensive.
No-one would be happier if I were wrong, and I actively pray that I am…
No, that’s dumb. All it does is pose the question of why you’d be pulling out troops immediately.
The Bush admin didn’t institute stop-loss and extended tours because they’re evil. They did it because they needed more troops in Iraq and couldn’t come up with them otherwise. The surge was implemented via extended tours for troops already committed, not new troops.
Here Iraq has proposed a withdrawal (let’s take it as that) in 3-4 years time. Surely you know it’d be more politically useful to them to propose turfing the US out earlier. But they’re not for some reason. Wanna bet that’s a significant one and one that you can guess ?